Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expertus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expertus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional (created by SPA), no evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Sources mostly primary, user-generated, bloggers or fail verification. Thicket of minor non-notable "awards", including from blogs. Tagged since 2014 without anyone doing anything to fix. PROD removed by IP without actually attending to problems. Google searches show other companies called Expertus; hits on this company appear to be mostly old press releases nobody in RSes took up on. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far there's not much to be going on with. David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still entirely PR, I nearly actually speedied myself. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've a reluctance to speedy things a couple of years old, but that's about all holding me back - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TOOSOON -- the company is not notable yet. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.